A question for Shrinkwrapped on David Irving and Islamists

After reading a piece by him on David Irving, a question came to mind:

Lately it has seemed to me that something has to give, either Islamist fundamentalist exegesis of the Koran, or the modern world. Fundamentalist Islamism is just about played out in reality. It is economically bankrupt, producing terrible and unnecessary poverty (aside from oil), it produces nothing of value in science and technology (as you noted from my patent piece), it has little art (blowing up statues and forbidding orchestral music), it has little literature (and very few Western books are translated into Arabic); in short, it has nothing to offer the world, and yet these people are taught that they should be in charge of everything and everyone as a matter of theology. It’s as though a whole people were having a nervous breakdown from the completely incompatible messages being delivered from their religion and the world.

Is this not analagous in some way to Holocaust denial — the desperate clining to a sick fantasy in the teeth of the evidence? Is it any wonder that Ahmadinejad himself takes this view?

One man with a sick fantasy like Irving is not a big deal to me. Perhaps I’m wrong, but there you are. However, we now have millions of people, indeed governments, in such a cosmic state of denial about the failure of their religion to deliver the promised goods, that they are willing, anxious to sign on to the strangest and most extravagant fantasies to explain that their problems are really not caused by a flawed belief system.

If a guy like Irving is not treatable to get his worldview to comport with reality, what does this say about the prospects for dealing with the violent and hysterical world of the Islamists, which is based on Koranic exegesis that over and over, every day and minute of the week, the real world demonstrates to be utterly bankrupt?

I’m afraid I just don’t see this having a good end, but maybe I’m missing something. I suppose if there were hope for a David Irving, that might be a different story.

The question may have been rhetorical, in that Shrinkwrapped has in many ways already provided his answer here.


So far, Lileks speaks for us on the port issue. In the immediate aftermath of the cartoon riots featuring hysterical, bloodthirsty and deranged Arabs and Muslims from around the globe — whose actions are either endorsed by or uncontrollable by their governments — the ports fiasco is, at a minimum, a reason the President should watch more TV.

Leave a Reply